War never changes.

Well /k/, this is it. The great happening of our time. The preemptive EMP burst just knocked out power and if you're in a major population center you're probably fricked so you may as well jerk off one last time before you get vaporized. If you're far enough from those you have about 10 minutes to get into your bunker. Do you have one of those? If not, will you do your best to cover some windows with blankets and pillows before hiding in your bathtub? Is your bug-out bag ready to go if you have to leave your house? Are you apathetic and feeling like a late-night stroll so you can enjoy the fireworks?

I have some food and water, enough to last me a month or so. That should be long enough for the initial fallout to drop off. If I hold up in my 1/2 basement I should be alright assuming a blastwave doesn't obliterate my house. My only concern is a large chemical plant that's somewhat close to me. It's about 4 miles away so I'm not terribly close but I'd definitely see the fireball if I was looking for it. Assuming they don't target the chemical plant, there's not enough near me worth hitting for them to waste a nuke in my neck of the woods.

How'd you fare fellow /k/ommandos?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Meds

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Only meds /misc/troons need are cyanide pills.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I found the amogus

    Also I don't live in a major population center I live innawoods

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lucky you.

      nukes aren't magic. blast effects will be limited to the proximity of high value targets. fallout will only be intense downwind of surface burst targets and for about a week or two. the number of valuable targets immensely outweighs anyone's deployable nuclear arsenal. the only thing getting hit are missile silos and bases/ports and a lot of those are going to be passed up on as well. unless you live within about 5-8 miles of one of those, your house probably won't even have broken windows from the strikes.
      there will be many secondary effects and issues, but there will also be an enormous number of extremely determined and now free of other labor individuals.
      it would suck, really really bad, but most people would probably make it.

      I mostly agree. There's big swaths of nothing all over the US so most ruralites will be spared as long as they aren't sunbathing in the days following the fallout.

      I was kinda concerned about nuclear power plants getting targeted since having a bunch of Chernobyls all over the place probably wouldn't be good for anyone.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        look at how far the exclusion zone actually extends vs the size of the US.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yea, but they were able to entomb that fricker after they closed it up and chilled it with all that boron and shit. Supposing only a handful of nuclear power plants were hit and were damaged badly enough to resemble the Chornobyl plant, that'd be a real b***h to clean up, along with all the other cleanup after a nuclear exchange.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Trying to create a Chernobyl style disaster by bombing a powerplant would be like trying to overclock your PC by magdumping an AR into it. Yeah you’ll probably make quite a mess but the desired result requires much more specific conditions.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Unless its a countervalue scenario, powerplants aren't actually very high up the list in a counterforce nuclear launch priority. Your average nuclear power plant cannot make nukes you need special reactors for that which suck at generating power in the first place (which is why we knew Iran was definitely not building power plants for electricity many years ago), since the decrease of nuke stockpiles following the cold war there are way more better targets around before power plants get hit.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I wasn't thinking about the capability to make nukes (or nuclear material for nukes) so much as damaging them and making a big mess to clean up. I can understand the strategy for prioritizing military and infrastructure targets but I figured causing 3 or 4 Chernobyls all over the place would be a taxing blow both in men and materials.

          I'm no military analyst though so maybe they're not as taxing as I thought when compared to traditional targets then.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's just not how NPPs work anon. They're ridiculously hardened against such attacks, and in the event of a power outage or something, the reactors are simply going to be shut down.
            Chernobyl went boom because the soviets were knowingly using a flawed reactor design, in which the tips of the control rods would momentarily increase the reactivity before they were fully inserted, and due to a bunch of other avoidable frickups that day, caused the reactor to melt down.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I wasn't thinking about the capability to make nukes (or nuclear material for nukes) so much as damaging them and making a big mess to clean up. I can understand the strategy for prioritizing military and infrastructure targets but I figured causing 3 or 4 Chernobyls all over the place would be a taxing blow both in men and materials.

              I'm no military analyst though so maybe they're not as taxing as I thought when compared to traditional targets then.

              Nuclear power plants are, absolutely, a high-priority target in a countervalue strike.

              >They're ridiculously hardened against such attacks
              They're hardened against terrorists flying a plane into the side of them, a nuclear strike is a completely different beast. In any case, whether the reactor core is protected enough to avoid being turned into fallout is a moot point since any reactor is surrounded by spent-fuel ponds which have no containment building or reactor vessel whatsoever.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The traditional targets for a counterforce strike are the enemy's nuclear launch capabilities. Airbases, silos, submarine bases, and command centres. This is the default launch option for most countries because it minimises collateral damage and is the most viable way to "win" a nuclear war. If the enemy has no nukes left or unable to launch their remaining nukes but you do, you will be able to dictate and impose your own victory conditions.

            Countervalue is the alternative option but logically it is not preferred because it carries too much inherent risk. With countervalue you target whatever the enemy nation needs in order to run the country. That means factories, infrastructure, and population centres. This method is riskier because you risk escalation into glorified assisted suicide when MAD gets invoked especially when hitting electrical power plants because not only are they extremely valuable in countervalue, but by association it impairs the enemy's ability to launch their counterstrike.

            The logic of a nuclear war is not the complete annihilation of the enemy, thats not nuclear war anymore since victory objectives turn into survival instead, but rather it is a balancing act of carefully damaging the enemy's nuclear capability until they are willing to come to the negotiating table without escalating it into MAD. Because logically a lose condition with some concessions is infinitely more preferable to MAD. Of course humans are not perfectly logical and so at any one point if someone miscalculates the reaction to a nuclear strike somewhere, there is a risk it escalates all the way to total annihilation.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Something you're forgetting is the personality and values of the opposing government. Putin doesn't value human life beyond its instrumentality, but that is still enough to make countervalue effective against him. Putin will survive in his bunker, but Russia won't. Without its factories, powerplants and cities, there is no longer an empire to rule over. That's not fun for him.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              counterforce maps are a huge overthinking by burgers who are under the impression the over seas are the same as them, just different looking.

              See zigger activity in ukraine and now tell me with a straight face that they will try to hit mil targets only. When faced with a choice of
              >either sending their old soviet junkers against some silo in nowhere Oregon that may or may not be empty by the time they get there
              >downtown la/new york
              which one will they prioritize? Same goes for changs. Their purpose is to kill as many burgers as possible and urban centers are oh so juicy targets. They will get hit no matter what but they dont simply care how many of their cattle has to die. Pic related is about the realistic nooker map

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Chang is extremely unlikely to pursue a countervalue strategy, China pursues a policy of minimum required deterrence and they only have at most around 300 warheads, a far cry from the multiple thousands in the US stockpile. They are indeed expanding it as of recent actions, but if they use up all their warheads on non-military targets they are now open for retaliation with impunity from surviving US forces or India taking an opportunistic attack. They will be forced to come to the negotiating table with zero nuclear leverage and everyone that hates them, practically all their neighbours, will impose a treaty that will make Versailles look like a joke under the threat of nuclear retaliation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bullshit.

                China can't pursue a counterforce strategy, the idea that they would even try is laughable.
                Like you say, they've got around 300 warhead total (and not all of those could even reach the US). We've got, what, 400 nukes in our silos alone? Assuming they launch at least 2 missiles at each silo to achieve a reasonable Pkill then we'd still have 250 missiles left to nuke them back. And 200-odd SLBMs.
                A China that's been glassed by our 450-strong second strike is not going to be meaningfully different to a China that was hit by a 600-strong second strike. Their country is going to collapse either way. All they'll have done is lost the chance to make us hurt too

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Their country is going to collapse either way.
                That would probably still be the case with a well-placed 1-strong second strike. Hit the dam and watch the cleansing flood.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The problem with nuking the dam is you're going to evaporate much of the water reservoir.
                It's going to be the greatest humanitarian catastrophe in history either way but hit it with conventional explosives for even bigger one kthxbye

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you're going to evaporate much of the water reservoir.
                The reservoir has a capacity of 39.3 km^3. To make our maths easier, we can convert it into litres: 3.93x10^13L. To evaporate 1L of 25°C water you need 2442kJ of energy. Therefore, to evaporate 1% of the reservoir's water (3.93x10^11L), you would need 9.597x10^17J. That's 959.7PJ of energy, equivalent to 229.3 Megatons. Now consider that the math I just did assumes that all of the energy from a nuclear detonation is transferred to the water with 100% efficiency (which is definitely not the case). Therefore, no, it wouldn't evaporate most of the water reservoir.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The thermodynamics of nukes and water is also why the Russian doomsday nuclear torpedoes are such laughable bullshit.
                If 230 Megatons is only barely enough to evaporate ~0.4 km^3 of water then you're going to need a LOT of Tsar bombs to make a tsunami.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why did Chinsect Hive create such a gaping weak point for itself? In a total war, you just know that it will be targeted and even if things had gone nuclear either way, the dam bursting will make it *even* worse. Millions that would probably survive the initial strikes = dead, and by god, the following wave of starvation created by the destruction of farmland would be unimaginable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh no they will hit downtown LA and NYC definitely first, but when compared with a target like, idk Boise or Bismarck, they will much rather take out one more nuke that might be heading to one of their metopolis in turn

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Notthatmapagain
              Are you trolling us with that map?

              lost what you consider valuable targets
              sum that list against actual examples
              then compare to the total deployed nuclear arsenals around the world.
              you won't respond with numbers, though, because you are pathetically uninformed.

              He also needs to allot 2-3 warheads (each from a different missile) to each target in order to be reasonably certain that at least 1 of them will successfully detonate at the target location. That math eats up warheads *fast*, especially against hardened targets like the Minuteman fields.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I was kinda concerned about nuclear power plants getting targeted since having a bunch of Chernobyls all over the place probably wouldn't be good for anyone.
        Literally never going to happen. Chernobyl only melted down, because the glorious soviet engineers built the emergency shutdown mechanism ass-backwards and because the political commissars refused to acknowledge anything was wrong.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nukes aren't magic. blast effects will be limited to the proximity of high value targets. fallout will only be intense downwind of surface burst targets and for about a week or two. the number of valuable targets immensely outweighs anyone's deployable nuclear arsenal. the only thing getting hit are missile silos and bases/ports and a lot of those are going to be passed up on as well. unless you live within about 5-8 miles of one of those, your house probably won't even have broken windows from the strikes.
    there will be many secondary effects and issues, but there will also be an enormous number of extremely determined and now free of other labor individuals.
    it would suck, really really bad, but most people would probably make it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the number of valuable targets immensely outweighs anyone's deployable nuclear arsenal
      As someone who knows this is wrong, I'd like to hear you explain why you think that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        lost what you consider valuable targets
        sum that list against actual examples
        then compare to the total deployed nuclear arsenals around the world.
        you won't respond with numbers, though, because you are pathetically uninformed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >you won't respond with numbers
          You didn't start with them. Neither the number of targets, nor the number of nukes. That's how I knew you were wrong. You don't have a clue how many warheads are deployable from even a single russian submarine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            told you so. you have no idea what you are talking about.

            >Notthatmapagain
            Are you trolling us with that map?

            [...]
            He also needs to allot 2-3 warheads (each from a different missile) to each target in order to be reasonably certain that at least 1 of them will successfully detonate at the target location. That math eats up warheads *fast*, especially against hardened targets like the Minuteman fields.

            correct. not everyone is getting nukes nearby, it's as simple as that. unless the aggressor chooses to totally fall on its sword and attempt no counter-force, how many missiles are you going to target on each value target? one? how many of your finite warheads are on that missile? are you only giving one per city to spread the love, or hit Manhattan, DC, San Diego, LA, Atlanta, San Fran, etc 10 or 20 times each? how many cities can you approach like that before you are out of warheads?
            the US only has about 1400 total warheads deployed on all ground and sea based missiles, not all of which are available at all times (since about 1/3 to 1/2 sea based missiles are in port at any given time)
            so like, 1100 total warheads. the US is a BIG place.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'll start with the numbers when you do. Until then, you're wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                how many nukes do you spend on Duval county Florida?
                you won't answer with a number because you don't have a fricking clue what you are talking about. all you can do is pretend, poorly, because you are a know-nothing homosexual without two synapses to spark at each other.
                Now stop posting, you sniveling beainless subhuman worm.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Either give the actual numbers yourself or remain wrong. I've literally got mine right here and am waiting to post them to correct you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                According to nuclear forces .org russia has 1400 warheads deployed across 570 ICBMs and over 100 SLBMs. Since their submarines will not get in range to fire theirs, we're looking at a stock of 1000 ICBM-mounted warheads. America has 400 Minuteman III silos, each requiring two ground burst nukes to reliably destroy, unless you want to gamble with just one per silo.
                That leaves you with between 600 and 200 warheads for all other targets.
                Next come strategic airfields and carrier strike groups. CSGs require a saturation attack due to all the SM-3s and SM-6s on the Burkes, so let's say 10 warheads per, times four deployed. 560-160 left
                Carriers, submarines in port, ports themselves: 30*3 = 470-70
                SAC targets - 32*3 warheads, 370 - NOTHING left
                C&C infrastructure: another 100 bombs most likely: 270-NOTHING
                Only now can you start thinking about hitting citie-
                No, wait
                You still have to nuke half of Europe's airfields, their C&C infrastructure, their submarine ports and their carriers

                Lol, lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This doesn't even account for THAAD and Patriot installations btw. You have to add 1 or 2 extra warheads per target or risk all its designated warheads getting shot down

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You need to discount all UR100-based launchers from the russian ICBM figures to get a more accurate number of their launch capabilities.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This doesn't even account for THAAD and Patriot installations btw. You have to add 1 or 2 extra warheads per target or risk all its designated warheads getting shot down

                No, that's incorrect. Russia isn't interested in counterforce, only countervalue, as they know human life is what the west cares about. Russia has the capability to kill all of america and europe (down to the last child) even if we just take the nukes from their minimum of 8 nuclear attack subs that are on patrol at any one time, which will definitely be in range for this.

                Russia has 8 ballistic missile equipped submarines on patrol at any one time. Each sub holds 16 ICBMs, which in turn contain 6 nuclear warheads each, for a total of 96 nukes per sub, and 768 in total. It's more than enough to target every major city in Europe and America. And that's just from the subs. The land based nukes will be more than enough to double down on the destruction.

                Russia CAN kill us all. We CANNOT stop them. We can ONLY kill them in return. Get this into your head and you might begin to understand why NATO hasn't established a no fly zone over Ukraine.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Counterforce
                You moronic, bro.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't live next to a nuke target so I'd just sink into the good chair with some books. Wait for it to blow over.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Second panel, cloud in the left of the main window

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have
    >my own well
    >a fruit orchard
    >cows
    >a ready to expand vegetable garden
    >a tractor
    >solar
    >diesel and gas generators
    >diesel and gas 4x4 pickups
    >enough rifles to arm my entire family and extended friend group, despite them all already being armed
    >multiple plate carriers
    >one year of food (mostly rice and beans) for my entire family
    >10,000 rounds of 5.56 and 7.62x51

    Literally the only thing that changes for me is I quit going to work and paying my bills, and grow more potatoes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh yeah? Well if SHTF i'm gonna come to your house and trade fairly with you in a way that is mutually beneficial

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm within the 5 PSI overpressure range of a potential nuclear target. That's apparently the threshold for "most residential buildings destroyed" but I'm reasonably confident we might survive despite that. Our house is built to survive a hurricane and we've got a bunker extending out from the basement. We can easily hang out down there for at least a week. It would be months but I've just realized most of our stored food is in the pantry or the garage which are both on the first floor, I'm confident we'd survive down in the basement and the house might not collapse but if it does then we'd have to dig through concrete to get to it (realistically though, I'd expect the political tensions preceding a mass nuclear strike would be enough of a warning for me to move more supplies downstairs).

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sus cloud

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have a nuclear bunker in my apartment basement. But I’m a block away from MOD.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh no.
    Not nukes.
    Anything but that.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That image was debunked like 5 minutes after it released, you know. Is someone saying something
      in a twitter screenshot is just too credible for you to not believe?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What part about it was debunked exactly? The part where you have never left a major metropolitan area and seen anything else?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t have to prove anything to you

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course not, you can't even prove your reality to yourself.

            ywnbaw

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Holy shit talk about a concession

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Source: my ass

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it will be covid 2.0 for those that don't die immediately, lockdown everyone stays indoors for a few months, lots of restrictions on travel and masks, work from home, recession, a few years or more of martial law, nothing will happen and even the ground zero points in cities that do get hit will be reclaimed and built on 5 years afterwards

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >10 minutes
    I guess I head down to the beach and go for a swim. not much I can do at that point.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dumb idea, but assuming you're near a ground zero area, if you swam out far enough into the ocean and dived down deep enough, do you think you could escape the concussive effects of the blast? Or would it be as helpful as jumping in a freefalling elevator before it smashes into the ground?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If it's vaporizing people above ground how would being underwater help you? Wouldn't the very ocean around you boil?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on how deep you go I guess? There's actual HEAT that would boil the water on the surface but you'd also want to be deep enough to diffuse gamma rays or whatever kinda direct light gives you the turbo cancer. I'd say you have to dive at least 10 feet down and be able to stay there for at least a minute or two during the initial blast (assuming you time everything right). Of course, if that anon is at ground zero, he'd still be fricked because he'd have to come back to land at some point and I don't know how radioactive ground zero would be, but I probably wouldn't want to walk around the beach which is probably glass at this point after the fact.

          Maybe if there was some way to swim into an underwater waste pipe or something and emerge in a sewer system? Good luck with that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If it's vaporizing people above ground how would being underwater help you? Wouldn't the very ocean around you boil?

        Depends on how deep you go I guess? There's actual HEAT that would boil the water on the surface but you'd also want to be deep enough to diffuse gamma rays or whatever kinda direct light gives you the turbo cancer. I'd say you have to dive at least 10 feet down and be able to stay there for at least a minute or two during the initial blast (assuming you time everything right). Of course, if that anon is at ground zero, he'd still be fricked because he'd have to come back to land at some point and I don't know how radioactive ground zero would be, but I probably wouldn't want to walk around the beach which is probably glass at this point after the fact.

        Maybe if there was some way to swim into an underwater waste pipe or something and emerge in a sewer system? Good luck with that.

        Heat shouldn't be a problem, water has a very high heat capacity and you wouldn't have to down very far to be completely insulated from the thermal effects.

        Pretty sure the shockwave would still kill you though. Water is a dense, incompressible medium and that means it transmits shockwaves extremely well. If anything, peak overpressure might be higher underwater than someone an equal distance away on the surface. Not sure though.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone who believes anyone is pursuing a counter-force stragetgy in 1991+33 is terminally moronic.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *